In article <D3A6n7.JtG@reston.icl.com>,
Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com> wrote:>In article <3ge9p5$kv9@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> djohns@grove.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:>>In article <1995Jan28.190123.28449@adobe.com> wtyler@mv.us.adobe.com (William Tyler) writes:>>>>There are obviously genetic traits that have limited geographic>>distribution. We know that there are some common in Sweden that don't>>extend to Nigeria and some common in Nigeria that don't extend to>>Sweden.>>>>But this fact does not validate the concept of races, unless you're>>willing to accept 5 billion of them.>>It seems that there is a similar problem in linguistics, but the>linguists don't get all bent out of shape about it.>...>If the concept of race is fundamentally flawed because there are>5 billion of them, then the concept of language must be similarly>flawed because there are 5 billion idiolects. Why are the linguists>still in business? Are they deluded?

Analysis by distinction is a useful tool; the insight it provides, however,
ultimately bring us to holistic understanding which transcends distinction.
It's not unnatural that we use categories like "race," etc., nor are such
distinctions arbitrary in a stochastic sense. However, it's just as natural
to see things crucially as continua, and at this stage in the game this may
offer us more insight.

That things are continual doesn't mean that they are all the same -- quite
the opposite; such a state is the telos of variation, such a view the
foundation of gradualism.

By the way, linguists (some of whom are not as blissfully enlightened on
quantum vs. continuum as you imply) in some circles use "variety" to replace
outmoded terms like "dialect" and "language."